already exists as an alternate
of this question.

exists and is an alternate of .

It is simple as they wee walking in the day time you see.To understand this, you need to know a little about how cameras work. When the shutter release on a camera is pressed, the shutter opens for a fraction of a second, allowing the light-sensitive material behind the shutter to be exposed. The amount of light that is allowed through is controlled both by how wide the shutter opens (aperture) and for how long it's open (shutter speed). The brighter the object being photographed the less light you want to let through to the film. Too much exposure will create an unrecognizable photograph; you will simply see a white blob. This is critical to understand because it is at the heart of the "missing" stars.

The surface of the moon, in direct sunlight (as it was during the Apollo missions), is very bright. So bright, in fact, that it can create shadows on the Earth in the middle of the night from 238,000 miles away. That fact alone means any camera used on the moon's surface must have the settings as such to no overexpose the film. But the astronauts weren't just taking pictures of the moon; they also took pictures of each other. The cameras used by the crew were set up to take pictures of the lunar surface, other astronauts in white spacesuits, in a bright white environment, in the middle of the lunar morning, in direct sunlight. The fact that no stars showed up in the images is to be expected. Had there been stars there would have been more evidence of a hoax.

Because we don't have telescopes that have that kind of resolution. Men really did land on the moon. 6 times; 12 men. http://tinyurl.com/knkt2v shows some pictures ta…ken by space probes near the Moon. Even Hubble could not see the Apollo LMs unless they were 300 feet across!

Taking a picture on the moon is just like taking a picture on Earth. During the moon landings, even though the sky was black, they were walking around during the lunar morning…, in broad daylight. The suits they wore were bright white, the ground they were photographing was also white. With these conditions, they had to stop down the aperature and shutter speed of the camera in order to prevent the photos from being overexposed. With the settings, the very dim (by comparison) stars were not bright enough to be captured by the very short exposure time of the film. You can test this theory yourself, using your own camera, and inside your own home. Tonight, leave the lights on in your house and take a picture, while indoors, of your cat/brother/husband/wife standing near the open window. Make sure the picture is focused on your subject! Now look at the image and count the stars that appear outisde the window. If you believe the Apollo pictures should have stars, then you should also be able to capture the stars using this experiment.

The reason you see no stars in any of the pictures from the moon landing (or in any of the pictures of Earth taken from the space shuttle) is because the light of the sun, ref…lecting off the moon (or Earth) is simply too bright, and it washes out the light from the dim stars in the background. To understand this, you need to know a little about how cameras work. When the shutter release on a camera is pressed, the shutter opens for a fraction of a second, allowing the light-sensitive material behind the shutter to be exposed. The amount of light that is allowed through is controlled both by how wide the shutter opens (aperture) and for how long it's open (shutter speed). The brighter the object being photographed the less light you want to let through to the film. Too much exposure will create an unrecognizable photograph; you will simply see a white blob. This is critical to understand because it is at the heart of the "missing" stars. The surface of the moon, in direct sunlight (as it was during the Apollo missions), is very bright. So bright, in fact, that it can create shadows on the Earth in the middle of the night from 238,000 miles away. That fact alone means any camera used on the moon's surface must have the settings as such to no overexpose the film. But the astronauts weren't just taking pictures of the moon; they also took pictures of each other. The cameras used by the crew were set up to take pictures of the lunar surface, other astronauts in white spacesuits, in a bright white environment, in the middle of the lunar morning, in direct sunlight. The fact that no stars showed up in the images is to be expected. Had there been stars there would have been more evidence of a hoax. You can test this theory yourself. Tonight, grab your camera and stand inside your house near the window with all the lights on (you can even open the window to make sure there is no obstruction between yourself and the stars). Now position something in front of the window yet still inside, in direct lamp light. Using your camera (it doesn't matter if you use the auto settings or change the settings yourself) take a bunch of pictures of the object in front of you (remember that object is your focus, you are trying to get pictures of your vase, not the sky!). Now look at the images and count the number of stars in your pictures. The sky behind the well lit object in your house is black without stars, and that was just using lamplight not direct sunlight. Incidentally, there are pictures taken of stars by a crew on the moon. Apollo 16 brought a special UV camera to the lunar surface for the specific purpose of doing some astronomy. There are hundreds of pictures of stars, just not in the pictures of the bright lunar surface. See related link for a picture of the moon from Space - no stars!!

not many Since there is no atmosphere to scatter sunlight and obscure your view, I believe that you can. You would just have to avoid looking too close to the sun. The moon's …surface is very reflective too, so you may have to work at it, depending on the time of lunar day.